Only hire someone that you’d be okay working for.
In one of the podcasts I listen to frequently (Masters of Scale), Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook was interviewed on his hiring best practices. This is what he said,
So the single most important thing is to get the best people you can around you. When I look at my friends who were running other good companies, the single biggest difference that I see in whether the companies end up becoming really great and reaching their potential, or just pretty good, is whether they’re comfortable and really self-confident enough to have people who are stronger than them around them. I’ve adopted this hiring rule, which is that you should never hire someone to work for you, unless you would work for them in an alternate universe.
Which doesn’t mean that you should give them your job, but just if the tables were turned and you were looking for a job, would you be comfortable working for this person? I basically think that if the answer to that is “no,” then you’re doing something expedient by hiring them, but you’re not doing as well as you can on that.
There are all these things that Sheryl, for example, is just much stronger than me at, and that makes me better and makes Facebook better. And I am not afraid or threatened by that—I value that. That’s what makes Facebook good.[1]
“You should never hire someone to work for you, unless you would work for them in an alternate universe.”
Wow.
When’s the last time you hired someone with that perspective in mind?
And if you’ve never interviewed someone who could be your boss, perhaps there’s something wrong with your job posting or the way you’re going about recruiting.
Unqualified, Qualified, and Overqualified
In all the positions I’ve hired, I’ve come across a lot of unqualified candidates. These don’t phase me. In fact, I often throw the résumés away because responding to every one of them would take too much time.
If the candidate is qualified, I then do some digging on social media to see what I can glean. If they’re legit, I’ll schedule an initial Skype/FaceTime/Zoom interview to get a feel for the type of person behind the cover letter and résumé.
If the candidate is overqualified, that’s when I get a bit nervous. Not flattered, but nervous. The following questions run through my mind:
- Do they not know that they’re overqualified?
- With all their experience, why do they want this job?
- What’s their ulterior motive?
- Why did they leave their previous job? What happened?
Yes, I can be pretty pessimistic, but the exponentially negative consequences of hiring the wrong person are worth it.
Having said that, I’ll still schedule the initial Skype/FaceTime/Zoom, but it’s less of an interview, and more like investigative journalism.
If they’re overqualified, I’m interviewing with other potential positions in mind (even if the positions are filled) to determine whether or not there is a growth track at the church or organization. If there isn’t, then I’m less likely to pursue the candidate because their engagement levels are going to be pretty low, which will inevitably lead to a short tenure in the position.
In other words, don’t just hire someone to fill a position. Only hire them if you see the potential that they can grow with you.
But the question that I haven’t asked is whether or not I’d be okay working for them.
That’s a game changer and will increase the level of excellence, talent, and growth in your church or organization because, “if the answer to that is “no,” then you’re doing something expedient by hiring them, but you’re not doing as well as you can on that.”[2]
In addition, if you are willing to hire someone you’d be okay working for (some day), then this will prevent you from hiring people who are just like you, or not as good as you. As a result, it will increase the diversity of talent, strengths, and giftedness in the church or organization.
What do you think?
Endnotes:
[1] https://mastersofscale.com/tim-ferriss-ten-commandments-of-startup-success/
[2] Ibid.